In this sample:
auto f = [](int some, int some2){
//do something
};
This case it is a functor or object of function?
std::function<void(int, int)> f = [](int some, int some2) {
//do something
}
Now, in this case, whats is the results? Functor or Object of function?
The first f (i.e., the one designated with auto) results to what is called a lambda function. Also knows as a closure. Closures are unnamed function objects. That's why we need auto to deduce the type of a closure. We don't know it's type but the compiler does. Thus, by using auto we let the compiler deduce the type of the unnamed closure object for us.
The second f (i.e., the one designated with std::function) is a std::function object. Class std::function is a general-purpose polymorphic function wrapper.
Lambdas closures as function objects can be converted to their respective std::function objects. That is exactly what is happening in:
std::function<void(int, int)> f = [](int some, int some2) {
//do something
}
The lambda closure on the right hand side is assigned and converted to the std::function object on the left side of the assignment.
Practically, they're both interpreted as functors, since they both overload call operator() and thus can be called, except for that the lambda's type is unnamed.
Another difference between those two is that you can't assign between lambda closures, since for lambda closures the assignment operator is declared deleted. while you can assign between std::function objects.
Related
I have a type A that's designed to be implicitly casted to type B. Here's an example case I'd like to use it in:
// Current implementation:
std::transform(vec_of_a.begin(), vec_of_a.end(), std::back_inserter(vec_of_b),
[](const A& a) -> B { return a; }); // Thanks, Kerrek SB.
// Ideal implementation - Won't compile, expected '(' after 'static_cast'.
std::transform(vec_of_a.begin(), vec_of_a.end(), std::back_inserter(vec_of_b),
static_cast<B>);
What can I do to make the latter option compile?
static_cast<B>, while it is invoked with function-call syntax cannot be passed like other callable things. E.g., there's no way to use & to get a function pointer to it.
You can use a short little lambda to achieve something similar to passing a function pointer to static_cast<B>, as you do in your current implementation:
std::transform(vec_of_a.begin(), vec_of_a.end(), std::back_inserter(vec_of_b),
[](const A& a) -> B { return a; });
Another option--in this particular case--would be to construct a vector<B> from the vector<A>:
std::vector<B> vec_of_b(vec_of_a.begin(), vec_of_a.end());
(This answer is a summary of the comments on both the question and bipll's answer.)
Build a functor enclosing static_cast:
template <typename T>
struct StaticCast
{
template <typename U>
T operator()(const U& rhs)
{
return static_cast<T>(rhs);
}
};
With this, you can call std::transform:
std::transform(vec_of_a.begin(), vec_of_a.end(), std::back_inserter(vec_of_b), StaticCast<b>());
It can be used in the case the output vector is already defined in place of the lambda shown in comments. If not, prefer the constructor mentioned in another answer**.
This functor version is compliant with C++98 if needed -- even if OP is tagged C++11, it may be worthy to note this point.
** Note that with this particular constructor, a warning C4244 is raised with VS compiler (tested with VS2017).
Yes, that's the way anonymous functions work in C++, and static_cast is not a function so you cannot pass its address as the mapped function. You'll have to deal with it.
You cannot use a constructor either.
I am fimilar with std::function , but i am reading a book that there is a code like this :
template<typename GameObject, typename Function>
std::function<void(SceneNode&, sf::Time)> derivedAction(Function fn)
{
return [=](SceneNode& node, sf::Time dt)
{
assert(dynamic_cast<GameObject *>(&node) != nullptr);
fn(static_cast<GameObject *>(&node), dt)
}
}
then the book use template like this :
Command moveLeft;//command is a structure
moveLeft.action//action is a std::function object
= derivedAction<Aircraft>(AircraftMover(-playerSpeed, 0));
//derivedAction specify<Aircraft> ???
my questions are :
1-derivedAction must be an object of std::function , i have checked references but i haven't found this kind of initialazation with {} , how this works ?
2-it is complicated to me , to understand the lambda expression , and why there is a return for it ?
i am pretty confused about this peice of code , any explination would be appreciated
std::function is a wrapper around anything, that can be called (i.e, you can use operator() on it). That is pointer to a function, class having operator() overloaded or lambda expression.
In your case, derivedAction is a templated function, accepting a single parameter (of templated type of name Function) and returning a function having void return type and accepting two parameters -- SceneNode& and sf::Time.
So to answer your questions.
1-derivedAction must be an object of std::function , i have checked references but i haven't found this kind of initialazation with {} , how this works ?
No, derivedAction is a function itself, like any other (i.e. int foo(){ return 0; }).
2-it is complicated to me , to understand the lambda expression , and why there is a return for it ?
Once again, the return value of derivedAction is a function (or rahter, something, which is callable).
If you look closely to the code of derivedAction, you will see, that it only wraps a function Function fn with some checks.
For your first question, derivedAction is a function, so you could define an empty body {} just like with any other function.
As for your second question, the return is the return of derivedAction. The breakdown of the lambda is as follows:
[=] Instructs to capture any referenced variable by making a copy
(SceneNode& node, sf::Time dt) describes the input arguments of the lambda function
In the body of the lambda, the lambda function operates on fn(). It casts node to a different type and modifies the node object.
In your example, fn is AircraftMover(-playerSpeed, 0). playerSpeed is of type SceneNode&, and 0 is of type sf::Time. The return type of that function is void. So, what all of this does in the end is modify the playerSpeed you feed into it based on dt. Hope this makes sense..!
I can't understand the function move in c++11.
From here, I got things below:
Although note that -in the standard library- moving implies that the
moved-from object is left in a valid but unspecified state. Which
means that, after such an operation, the value of the moved-from
object should only be destroyed or assigned a new value; accessing it
otherwise yields an unspecified value.
In my opinion, after move(), the moved-from object has been "clear". However, I've done a test below:
std::string str = "abcd";
std::move(str);
std::cout<<str;
I got abcd on my screen.
So has the str been destroyed? If so, I could get abcd because I'm just lucky? Or I misunderstood the function move?
Besides, when I read C++ Primer, I got such a code:
class Base{/* ... */};
class D: public Base{
public:
D(D&& d): Base(std::move(d)){/* use d to initialize the members of D */}
};
I'm confused now. If the function move will clear the object, the parameter d will be clear, how could we "use d to initialize the members of D"?
std::move doesn't actually do anything. It's roughly analogous to a cast expression, in that the return value is the original object, but treated differently.
More precisely, std::move returns the object in a form which is amenable to its resources being 'stolen' for some other purpose. The original object remains valid, more or less (you're only supposed to do certain special things to it, though that's primarily a matter of convention and not necessarily applicable to non-standard-library objects), but the stolen-away resources no longer belong to it, and generally won't be referenced by it any more.
But! std::move doesn't, itself, do the stealing. It just sets things up for stealing to be allowed. Since you're not doing anything with the result, let alone something which could take advantage of the opportunity, nothing gets stolen.
std::move doesn’t move anything. std::move is merely a function template that perform casts. std::move unconditionally casts its argument to an rvalue,
std::move(str);
With this expression you are just doing type cast from lvalue to rvalue.
small modification in program to understand better.
std::string str = "abcd";
std::string str1 = std::move(str);
std::cout<<str<<std::endl;
std::cout<<str1<<std::endl;
str lvalue typecast to rvalue by std::move, std::string = std::move(str); =>this expression call the string move constructor where actual stealing of resources take placed. str resources(abcd) are steeled and printed empty string.
Here is sample implementation of move function. Please note that it is not complete implementation of standard library.
template<typename T> // C++14; still in
decltype(auto) move(T&& param) // namespace std
{
using ReturnType = remove_reference_t<T>&&;
return static_cast<ReturnType>(param);
}
Applying std::move to an object tells the compiler that the object is eligible to be moved from. It cast to the rvalue.
class Base{/* ... */};
class D: public Base{
public:
D(D&& d): Base(std::move(d)){/* use d to initialize the members of D */}
};
Base(std::move(d)) it will do up-casting only move the base class part only.
Here one more interesting thing to learn for you. If you do not invoke base class destructor with std::move like D(D&& d): Base(d) then d will be considered as lvalue and copy constructor of Base class involved instead of move constructor. Refer for more detail Move constructor on derived object
It is my understanding that move semantics can use move-constructors to elide what would otherwise be a copy. For example, a function returning a (perhaps) large data structure can now return by value, and the move constructor will be used to avoid a copy.
My question is this: is the compiler required to not copy when this is possible? It doesn't seem to be the case. In that case, wouldn't the following code have "implementation-defined" semantics?
static const int INVALID_HANDLE = 0xFFFFFFFF;
class HandleHolder {
int m_handle;
public:
explicit HandleHolder(int handle) : m_handle(handle) {}
HandleHolder(HandleHolder& hh) {
m_handle = hh.m_handle;
}
HandleHolder(HandleHolder&& hh) : m_handle(INVALID_HANDLE) {
swap(m_handle, hh.m_handle);
}
~HandleHolder() noexcept {
if (m_handle != INVALID_HANDLE) {
destroy_the_handle_object(m_handle);
}
}
};
Say then we make a function:
HandleHolder make_hh(int handle) { return HandleHolder(handle); }
Which constructor is called? I would expect the move constructor, but am I guaranteed the move constructor?
I'm aware this is a silly example and that -- for example -- the copy constructor of this object should be deleted because there is no way to use it safely otherwise, but the semantics are simple enough that I wouldn't think something like this would be implementation-defined.
Yes, of course. There's nothing implementation-defined about it.
If there is a move constructor and it can be used, and it is a choice between a move constructor and a copy constructor, the move constructor will be invoked. That is a guarantee.
[C++11: 13.3.3.2/3]: [..] Standard conversion sequence S1 is a better conversion sequence than standard conversion sequence S2 if:
[..]
S1 and S2 are reference bindings (8.5.3) and neither refers to an implicit object parameter of a non-static member function declared without a ref-qualifier, and S1 binds an rvalue reference to an rvalue and S2 binds an lvalue reference.
[..]
I think your confusion stems from misuse of the term "elide". The compiler may elide copies/moves and replace them with nothingness — with in-place construction that bypasses the invocation of a constructor altogether. Copy elision never results in a move, and move elision never results in a copy. Either the object "transferral" happens or it does not.
You could sort of argue that your program has "implementation-defined" semantics in the sense that you don't know whether copies/moves will be elided until the program has been compiled, and because such elision is allowed to modify side-effects (such as console output). But we don't tend to think of it that way.
Regardless, this does not affect which of the copy and move constructors will be invoked if either are to be.
Your example is further flawed because only your move constructor can be invoked: your copy constructor takes a ref-to-non-const which can't be bound through an rvalue initialiser.
In the following example, why doesn't the move constructor get called in the construction of 'copy' inside fun, even though the 'src' argument of 'fun' is explicitly a rvalue reference and is only used in that construction?
struct Toy {
int data;
Toy(): data(0)
{
log("Constructed");
}
Toy(Toy const& src): data(src.data)
{
log("Copy-constructed");
}
Toy(Toy&& src): data(src.data)
{
log("Move-constructed");
}
};
Toy fun(Toy&& src)
{
Toy copy(src);
copy.data = 777;
return copy;
}
Toy toy(fun(Toy())); // LOG: Constructed Copy-constructed
While Bob && b is an rvalue reference, all named use of data after construction is using it as an lvalue.
So Bob&& b will only bind to rvalues, but when you use it it will not move.
The only ways to get an rvalue reference are:
A value without a name, such as a temporary return value or result of a cast.
Use of a local value variable in a simple return x; statement.
Explicitly casting to an rvalue, such as with std::move or std::forward.
This prevents data from being silently moved from on one line and then used on the next. It can help to think of rvalue as being 'I the programmer say this is not needed after this expression' at use, and 'only take things that are not needed afterwards' in function parameters. The temporary/return exceptions above are two spots the compiler can relatively safely guarantee this itself.
Finally, note that universal references (auto&& and T&&) look like rvalue references but sometimes are not.